Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year... But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?

from the reality-smacking-that-myth-around dept

For a few years now, we've been hearing pay TV execs (and some of their favorite Wall Street analysts) claiming that cord cutting in the US is some sort of myth, even as the numbers continue to prove otherwise. The latest stat is that, since the beginning of this year 400,000 households have cut the cord and dropped pay TV services. At what point will the TV guys realize that cord cutting is real? They still like to blame it all on the economy, but the fact is that the vast majority of these users are never going back. Until TV execs realize that's a fact, they're never going to understand how to adapt.

Cord-nevers

There's also somethnig to be said for the "cord-nevers" - those in their 20s who have never had a cable subscription. They get their mass media entertainment from Hulu, Netflix, and other online sources. That segment will be even more disruptive than the cord-cutters.

Re: Cord-nevers

I'm a cord-never, but I don't get my content from Hulu or Netflix. Hulu isn't available in my country (I don't want to pay for a VPN to access something that is stupidly geo-blocked) and Netflix in my country has an extremely limited library and limited interface. I prefer using Media Player Classic and being able to select alternate languages and subtitles. That, and I don't like streaming: I much prefer to have the video files sitting on my hard drives.

So...what's your plan, media conglomerates? How are you going to entice me into paying you? Oh wait, I know how. By limiting your online selections, locking everything away as much as humanly possible and then suing the very people who you are trying to entice into becoming customers.

Re: Cord-nevers

The big name execs won't admit cord-cutters exist, I doubt they will ever buy into the idea of people who never had a subscription to start with. Since it's harder to show numbers on that they will continue to dismiss it.

Re: Cord-nevers

And even those of us in our 30s. I have coworkers who are just realizing that they can hook their TV up to their computer thanks to Netflix telling them that and they're amazed when I mention that I've been doing it for over six years.

It was pretty damn obvious years ago that the internet and television would eventually merge (Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, e.g.). Now we just need the media companies to realize that and stop trying to keep that from happening.

Re: Criminals

Most of the people non-cord cutters that I know are keeping cable because of college and pro sports. This is probably great news for the sports industry in the short term. It gives ESPN and other sports channels good reason to extort more and more money from the cable industry.

But in the long term sports is losing the next generation. I am the mentor to one of our campus's residence halls. Students are not connecting to the free cable TV that is provided by the University. Most of them do not even have TV's. Most of the ones who do have TV's are connecting them to the Internet but not the cable outlet. Keep in mind that the cable is provided FREE, students just have to buy their own patch cable. But in my dorm the TV outlet is in an inconvenient location, so it isn't worth hooking up for most students. This is the flip side of "you can't compete with free." In this case free can't compete with paid services like HuluPlus and Netflix.

Ten years ago if you went to the residence halls on Friday or Saturday you would hear football or basketball coming from most of the rooms. Now it is rare to hear even a single TV on football on Sunday afternoon. Sports is losing a generation because they are dependent on cable revenue.

Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon

I cut the cord back in 1992 when ComCast insisted that I had to buy a five-channel package (four of which were garbage) in order to get the SciFi channel. I canceled my service and haven't gone back or gone to any other service since.

As for the current situation, I think the key item in the article cited was the phrase "regular programming blackouts," as the studios and distributors squabble over who gets to keep which slice of the rapidly shrinking pie, leading to more and more customer desertions.

We're finally seeing a (sort of) answer to the old question "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" There's a war, and the customers are leaving in droves.

Me, I'm stocking up on popcorn, laughing like hell, and watching the show. I don't think there's going to be any programming blackout on THIS soap opera.

Sadly they are sure it is a myth, because seeing how the cartels have gotten their way over and over it is merely a matter of the right amount of cash in the right hands to get some law requiring everyone to have cable... for the children and to defeat terrorists!

Re: Re: Cord-nevers

It's not stupidly geo-blocked. Many times, it is the television program makers who are telling Hulu "Only in the United States" because they want to charge people outside the United States a higher or lower rate.

I suppose I'm not a cord cutter, strictly speaking...

I cancelled my Spotify, LoveFilm and Netflix subscriptions the day that Ofcom announced their three-strikes rules in the UK. The next time I will spend any money with any organisation related to the MPAA or RIAA is when they repeal the Digital Economy Act.

Short sighted profits

The cable companies really don't care about the cord-cutters or the cord nevers because they are focused on revenue. Subscription TV is still hugely profitable for the foreseeable future, so they won't bother to react to disruption until the game has completely changed.

Let's not forget that the cable companies in the US control a huge share of the broadband market. So even if they lost the pay TV market, they will just squeeze more from their pipes. They will just continue to claim there is a bandwidth shortage and ratchet up the metering on the pipes until that market is disrupted (Google, anyone?.

I cut the cord a year ago and it was the best decision I ever made. Now when I visit friends or families houses where they do have cable I look at it and wonder why. I have to scroll past pages and pages of pure infomercial channels, only to find that every station has some form or pawn,pickers, ice whatever. These reality shows are all the same and so predictable it's downright dull. I never will again pay the outrageous rates for TV that is all the same and all terrible.

Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon

I cut the cord back in 1992 when ComCast insisted that I had to buy a five-channel package (four of which were garbage) in order to get the SciFi channel. I canceled my service and haven't gone back or gone to any other service since.

Good thing you did...There is only so much WWF/WWE a person can watch on Sy-Fy before you give up and watch something else. I never understood the link between Science Fiction and wrestling, but apparently that was Sy-Fy's main demographic.

Re:

Sadly they are sure it is a myth, because seeing how the cartels have gotten their way over and over it is merely a matter of the right amount of cash in the right hands to get some law requiring everyone to have cable... for the children and to defeat terrorists!

Just wait, now that Individual Mandate has been ok'd by the Supreme Court, it is only a matter of time before we see a new tax on the various copyright industries and on cable subscriptions. If the government can force you to buy health insurance, and can fine you if you don't, I figure there is only a little while longer before they can force you to buy cable AND satellite coverage and fine you if you don't. If it isn't in a bill already sitting in a Senator's inbox, it will be shortly.

Yes, losses of 400,000 - and gains somewhere else of 275,000. Net, you are looking at 125,000. Considering the economy, that is a very small fraction of subscribers being lost.

Also there is no indication if these are true cord cutters (getting ride of all wire line style services), or are they dropping pay TV and maintaining their internet connections. As an example, it might be interesting to see how many of these people have shifted to tablet PCs with 4G as their main source, making their home internet connection redundant, and therefore leading then to also turn off the TV channels.

There is a significant lack of information in the story from which to draw any conclusions.

Re:

"Sadly they are sure it is a myth, because seeing how the cartels have gotten their way over and over it is merely a matter of the right amount of cash in the right hands to get some law requiring everyone to have cable.."

Too late it has already started down that road, The cable Co.'s have already gone to the FCC about encrypting the free over the air channels the carry!

Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon

I also cut my Cable Cord when they would not allow me to choose the few channels I wanted.That was a good 7 - 10 years ago.
Nowadays I don't seem to care what is put out by the Hollywood Industry.I am more interested in INDIE & Local Art & Films.

To say people are "never going back" is a bit absolute. I'd go back - if they offered me something better than what Hulu/Vudu/bittorrent can offer me. But currently, they don't offer anything I want, beyond a handful of shows themselves. I certainly DO NOT WANT that they dictate when I watch, in the resolution they choose, with the commercials they require, all for a price that I feel doesn't match the value I receive.

Offer me a la carte programming, in HD, with a max of 3 minutes of commercials per 30 mins of video, and make it either on-demand or psuedo on-demand (aka "recordable via DVR) and then offer it at a price that makes it competitive and you might get a customer back.

Cable TV is obsolete

The whole idea behind cable tv and broadcast tv is an obsolete technological artifact from the previous millennium.

It was due to the limited technology of the day that entertainment had to be divided up into into "channels" that used valuable spectrum -- whether you or anyone was actually watching or not*. To make life worse, in the age before DVR's, they didn't broadcast those shows at all odd hours of the night when your DVR could record them. Instead you had to adjust your life around when your favorite show came on -- or miss it.

So it was sliced and limited in one dimension by channels, and slice and limited in another dimension by time slots. And as the major-international-sporting-events-that-must-not-be-named** illustrates, Prime Time is everything. People are expected to organize their life around a time slot, in order to learn about events that already happened and are over -- but we can't let the actual news of what happened escape in real time.

With Internet instead of Cable TV coming into my house, I don't need the bandwidth for all those HD channels. All I need is bandwidth for the one that I am watching right now. And in principle, this internet-thingy technology doesn't have any built in limit, in principle, on how many possible servers could exist to serve entertainment to me. Eg, they aren't limited by the finite resource called spectrum. Furthermore, the internet tv can be on-demand -- when I want to see it. And even more inconceivable to the old broadcast TV, I can watch it from anywhere, in principle, across the country or across the globe. And on any device, for example, while riding the subway using WiFi, or a cellular data plan. No worry about moving "out of range" of the broadcast area.

They just can't seem to believe there may be some upper limit to how many commercials they can put in front of our eyes. Even after a commercial break, they interrupt your show for the first couple of minutes with animated distractions that cover up part of the reason you were watching in the first place. Even when those end, there is always the ever present annoying bug in the corner with the logo superimposed on the program. At some point, Enough is Enough.

*Philosophical question: If a reality tv show is broadcast, and nobody watches, does it still use up valuable spectrum?

**This reference is in no way meant to imply anything official or unofficial about any particular sports related event that may or may not be going on in London in 2012.

With winning tropes like My Dysfunctional Family (Modern Family, The New Normal, Two and a Half Men), Pop-Culture-Based Satire (Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park) and Geeks Are Weird (Big Bang Theory, The New Girl), we all know that those 400k subscribers will be back; how could they stay away?

Sorry if my examples are stale or inaccurate: I haven't watched network TV since the 90s.

Comcast has a novel way to fight it

I cut cable a few years ago after subscribing to Netflix, trying it out for a few months, and coming to the decision that it was a viable replacement for video entertainment.

A few months ago, Comcast dropped off a cable box for the basic channels that I would now get free as part of my internet subscription. So now, I guess, I am part of their statistics of "not a cord cutter".

Of course, it took me a couple months before I even bothered to hook the cable box up; and, in the process of troubleshooting internet connection problems, we discovered the cable splitter installed back in 2001 was bad, so it's been removed and the cable goes straight into the cable modem, so the cable box is no longer connected. But if it makes them feel better to have one less "cord cutter" on the books....

Re: propoganda

"Leave it to content industry executives to underplay a paradigm shift int he way their customers consume content..."

They aren't underplaying a shift, rather I suspect they are watching with a little bit of amusement because the shift is from watching their content HERE to watching their content THERE.

They are more concerned that, in the long run, you need up with too many mooches getting the material for free without a valid financial structure in place, and you end up with not enough money to make the content.

Everyone bitches about reality TV, but reality TV is the outcrop of your desire for hundreds of channels. They have to fill the air with something, and they have to do it at a reasonable cost. Reality TV is cheaper by the hour than sitcoms are by the half hour, generally.

The content people realize that when they stop making the content because not enough people are paying, that the "alterative" is also lost, because they are the alternative to themselves. There really isn't enough else out there.

They never get it

I cut the cord as of last year. You can tell pay TV sources are a huge revenue source because not only did the sales person throw every deal under the sun at me not to give up TV on my U-verse account, but now I constant TV offers from AT&T almost weekly.

I still recall the sales person asking this final question: "Sir, what is it AT&T could do to let you keep your TV service?" My reply: "Offer me a package that is 10 dollars a month and consists of 5 channels of my choosing." Surprisingly the representative I talked to says he gets that message a lot, and constantly submits it as feedback to the higher ups, but nothing changes.

Re:

Also there is no indication if these are true cord cutters (getting ride of all wire line style services), or are they dropping pay TV and maintaining their internet connections.

The term "cord-cutting" generally refers to opting out of cable TV offerings, not necessarily opting our of cable-based internet services.

About 75% of the people I know have stopped cable TV service and all of them have cable-based internet service (as it's the only realistic option in my area). Very few people I know use 4G for regular streaming because they're afraid of hitting usage caps.

Re: Re: propoganda

Everyone bitches about reality TV, but reality TV is the outcrop of your desire for hundreds of channels.

I have a hard time believing that people rally want hundreds of channels just for the sake of having hundreds of channels. I think people would pay much more, and be happier about it, per-channel if they could only have a dozen channels but got to choose which channels those dozen were.

Re:

Most of the people non-cord cutters that I know are keeping cable because of college and pro sports. This is probably great news for the sports industry in the short term. It gives ESPN and other sports channels good reason to extort more and more money from the cable industry.

This is why I keep my basic cable. I'd gladly give ESPN $10/month to keep them and drop everything else.

Re: They never get it

Yea I had the same experience when I "ditched the dish" with DirecTV.

The final straw for me was when I got charged out of the blue when my "Trial" of showtime ended. I worked out the numbers and I could save over $30 a month if I bought all my shows off of xbox live & bought DVD's to fill the gaps.

What these guys don't get is that it's not about the money. I would gladly pay upwards of $50 a month for Netflix if they had new shows and movies. I also wish they would have stuck with their guns and went forward with the online and DVD mail split.

Re:

My kids are 3 and have never watched cable tv. We went on a trip and at one point when the gownups were sorting out what to do that day turned on the tv for them.

They were by turns horrified and annoyed by:
1) interruptions from advertising
2) inability to watch a show from the beginning
3) inability fast forward through credits
4) inability to stop watching, and pick up show from same spot again later
5) inability to select what to watch

If/when they develop a sense of what "money" is, I can only imagine their bouts of confusion as on that day I explain to them that to get the interrupted, unpausable broadcast that caused them so much annoyance, they'd have to pay a lot more than netflix (which they love).

Re: They never get it

When I went that route with DISH they came up with a $14.99 a month plan that includes local channels, Comedy Central, History, Discover, HGTV and The Food Network (for my wife, really!) CNN, and a few others. Given that I live 50 miles from the TV transmitters and was going to have to invest $400 for a suitable roof top antenna with amplifiers and all that, sticking with the service at that price wasn't such a bad deal.

Re: Re: Re: propoganda

Re:

Yes, losses of 400,000 - and gains somewhere else of 275,000. Net, you are looking at 125,000. Considering the economy, that is a very small fraction of subscribers being lost.

Would you care to cite proof? I can pull numbers out of my anal orifice, too.

Regardless, every avalanche starts with a snow-flake.

Also there is no indication if these are true cord cutters (getting ride of all wire line style services), or are they dropping pay TV and maintaining their internet connections. As an example, it might be interesting to see how many of these people have shifted to tablet PCs with 4G as their main source, making their home internet connection redundant, and therefore leading then to also turn off the TV channels.

The whole statement is redundant. The suggestion was already made by several posters previous to you. Why did you even bother to write that?

There is a significant lack of information in the story from which to draw any conclusions.

Re: Cord-nevers

It's not just Netflix/Hulu/etc. Many cord-nevers don't even feel the need to consume *any* television-like media. We're too busy playing video games, which involve actively engaging the media. The idea that you sit there and just passively consume media is anathema to us.

Commercials....especially the ones put into no longer in production tv shows (commercials are sold to pay for the shows production is the excuse ?) as well as any movie....the litany of crap shows and faked reality tv shows....the non option for subscribing to only the channels desired....the networks lobbying against services that would remove commercials ...commercials....commercials....commercials....commercials.....commercials.....

Re:

I haven't consciously and willingly had a cord in at least ten years. The only time I had a cord is if the ISP required the cord to be bundled with the internet service, in which case I bought the bottom-of-the-barrel cord. For a few years I didn't even own a TV, but then I got back into console gaming.

Re: Short sighted profits

Agree. Comcast simply charges you more for internet if you drop cable tv. Until there are serious competitors in the internet market, cable providers will pick our collective pockets one way or another.

Re: Re:

Dude, ease off the coffee. It's not out of line for the guy to suggest that the overall picture may be incomplete based solely on the numbers in the article.

Even if is a little disingenuous that his hypothetical appears to be an assertion of fact. It's still a valid question, two actually: How do these numbers compare to the net shift? and How significant a shift is it, really?

Also, he did preface the statement as something that "need[s] to get looked at." So maybe it wasn't really dishonest at all.

"As an example, it might be interesting to see how many of these people have shifted to tablet PCs with 4G as their main source, making their home internet connection redundant, and therefore leading then to also turn off the TV channels."

I also thought this was interesting. Yeah someone else mentioned 4G. This guy suggested a possible research topic, a rather well-defined one, too. I found that worth thinking about.

"Regardless, every avalanche starts with a snow-flake."

Way to attack an argument from silence with a slippery slope fallacy. You killed him good! An eye for an eye! Who cares if they're both blind already.

Incidentally, some avalanches start with a really mean and nasty jerkwad throwing stones to blow off steam. Just sayin'.

Re: Cord-Cutting is NOT a new phenomenon

That's about when we cut the cord. The trigger for us was when we called the cable company to change from premium (which we had for a couple of years) to basic service. They wanted to charge us $20 to make that change. After trying to convince them that charging $20 for making an entry on a terminal was a bit excessive, we asked how much would it cost to cancel service? $0

At that point we realized we were dealing with some kind of subhuman parasitic life forms who were impervious to logic or even good business sense. We cut the cord and we've never looked back.

Re: Re: Re:

Didn't Canada or the UK at one point put a tax on all blank CD's to pay the RIAA (or equal group in those countries) assuming that the discs were used for stealing music?

They did. I also believe they now have that tax for hard-drives too... Music CDs are sold in the US that have a similar tax...so it is always better to avoid those if you are using CDs to back up data, or for purposes other than music.

But don't worry, that is one of those "ridiculous" cases that will never happen thanks to our great democratic process according to those who support the SCOTUS decision.

I know you were being sarcastic, and agree with the sarcasm (my comment was sarcasm as well, which apparently some missed.) I don't think it will happen, but considering the slippery slope and unintended consequences of other "good" laws, I suspect it has already been thought of by those in power over at the RIAA/MPAA. They will likely push for it, if they feel they can get away with it. Hopefully they don't think they can get away with it, or if they do, that we don't let them get away with it.

yes mike, it is easy to dismiss the economy as haveing anything to do with it, as doing so helps you promote your own agenda, but you do know lots of people, have not worked for over a year or more, or have low paying jobs, it is a finanacial decision, as something they can live without due to not have the excess monies to afford it

Re:

When I asked my cable co. about ala carte programming a few years ago, the laughed in my face and said it was technologically impossible. When I pointed out premium channels and PPV are essentially ala carte (and thus technologically possible), they said well, bundling channels gave struggling channels a chance to establish themselves. When I asked how did established channels feel about splitting the pie with junk programming, they reminded me other people were in line and would I please move on. And every month since then I get a nice letter saying they miss me and offering even more channels I've never heard of.

Pride and Predjudice and Zombies!

Jane Austen may be fiction but it's not SCIENCE FICTION.

If there aren't any robots or super serum involved, a wrestling story has no business on the Sci-Fi channel.

On the other hand: there are a great number of Sci-Fi movies (classics even) that are nowhere near the Sci-Fi channel. In fact, if you are interested in Sci-Fi classics you're better off watching AMC and several other channels.

The law is the law.

The law is the law.

Once a stupid precedent becomes law then all sorts of nasty unintended consequences can occur. It's an obvious result of a "do something" mentality as opposed to a "what are we allowed to do" mentality.

When you remove the rule of law completely, all sorts of strange things are possible.

The fact that this can even be portrayed as a "political" issue is somewhat obscene.

Re: propoganda

You can also do that by telling your cable set top box to ignore all of the crap channels you don't want. You still have to pay for them though.

I don't want 500 bad channels. I want 10 or 20 good ones.

Discovery and History splitting up into multiple channels is nothing that benefits me and nothing that I am clamouring for. If anything it seems like a cheap bid to extract more money out of my and my cable provider.

Trying to hide the point.

If these cord cutters find suitable alternatives, it doesn't really matter what their motives are. These people will likely no longer view current cable pricing as acceptable. They will likely not come back even after their fortunes improve.

Also a cutter several years ago

I also moved away from paid TV a couple years ago. Got myself a mac mini, an HDMI cable, and an app to control the mini through my iPad. Watch most of my TV for free through Hulu, Netflix, or the show's websites. A couple I have to get through iTunes, but a couple of season passes once a year cost less than one month of DirecTv.

Re: Cord-nevers

I'm in this group. in the house I lived in until I was 20, it would have cost $10,000 to install cable, because cable service stopped at the beginning of my street, and they wanted to install a full trunk down my street incase others wanted to join in. Problem is, they wanted the first person to sign up for cable to foot the entire cost, and even if they split the cost among everyone, there were at total of 3 houses on the road that was about a 1000 feet long, so it would have still been prohibitively expensive. We also never got satellite, didn't feel it was worth the expense for the amount of TV we watched. After I moved, I didn't have a lot of money, so I either could get cable/satellite, or get internet. I picked 'net. I am perfectly fine with not having cable. For years now, I've had a computer, or some other net capable device hooked up to a TV, to stream video, and will continue to do so.

I can tell you I cut the cord 10 years ago. I did so because it was then much too expensive for what was being offered and what was shown were repeats and reruns most of the time. Simply I wasn't getting my money's worth then. Today is much worse.

Add to it the amount of stupid shows put on. I got more entertainment value watching the people watching the tv than the program that was on. Add to this that the programs I like were not being made at the same rate as the stupid shows. Maybe one or two a month actually new.

When I looked at my watching habits, I found that it was being used more for background noise than it was for interesting programs. Why in the world was I paying for this?

The younger generation is the future for cable and PPV. Just like most have little inclination to pay for music, most don't care about tv either. Whether big entertainment cares about it or not, future change is in their upcoming agenda. Prices are already all the market will tote and more. It's over priced and over valued.

I no longer own a tv. Didn't buy one when the digital changeover occurred and have no interest in buying one today just to be served commercials. They can take their over priced, commercial loaded crap and feed it to someone else. I won't be part of it as I am never going back to it.

Re: Re: Re: propoganda

Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers

Well, whether its Hulu itself or the program makers, if I go to www.hulu.com...
Hang on, that's weird. Earlier on, when I went to check out Hulu, it said there were geo-blocks.
Now it isn't.
Huh. That's a head-scratcher right there.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers

Ah, there it is. I don't get the "Only available in US" warning until I actually select a movie and try to watch it. Well, as I was going to say in the above comment, they don't want to charge people outside the US a higher or lower rate...they can't be, since the content isn't being made available at all!
Plus, any arguments they might make to support different prices in different regions are bullshit. It's the same product, being given to me on my own internet connection. With physical goods, you have shipping and customs costs to take into account when dealing with international customers: not so when you're dealing with an online retailer who's not in the same country as your customer. That's why if I were to buy a book/song/movie (digitally) off of Amazon US, despite being in Ireland, I would be charged the exact same price by Amazon as a US customer. The only extra charges I would see would be from my bank, from converting my euroes into dollars.

Re: Re: Re:

VERY INTERESTING..

Cable in the OLD DAYS made a few promises..
NONE of which came to fruit.
1. less commercials, Now we have channels that are ALL commercials.
2. ALMOST if not free.
I wont get into it..but WHY do we need 200+ channels?
Many people have forgotten that Broadcast TV is alive and well. in many locations you get Many channels.. Im in very rural area(farming) and get all the basic and Independent channels(about 20+ total)..
Major metro should have Tons more then I can get.
but its the Basic hardware. $50 antenna and $50 Signal booster. Then getting the antenna up HIGH enough to get good signal.
You can get MORE locally then with cable/sat. Adverts for an area on cable sat. ARE NOT local business. You can only see National business's on Cable/sat.
Local channels advert LOCAL business. As well as national corps.
Out of all the channels you can get on Cable/sat..how many do you REALLY watch?
most people can break the list down to BELOW 20 channels. but, YOU ARE STILL paying for those other channels.
ESPN is the highest PAID channel selection, about $5 per month, PER PERSON. You dont watch GOLF on ESPN, you still paid the $5. you dont watch Basketball?? 3 months, you paid for it..
DOES any of this money go to the PLAYERS?? NOPE. they have to sign contracts, that say THEY DONT GET ANYTHING for the representation of them in the media.

So,
Why charge for cable?
What would it take for ALL these TV companies to install HARDWARE to get access to ALL the people in the USA?
ANTENNA' sites all over the USA to get the customer to WATCH their channels? TONS of money. and it would be free.

CAble can be the sleeping dragon.
They COULD CUT the service. FORCE these companies to Understand..Cutting the Advertising ability of a company is a MAJOR HIT..

Re: Pride and Predjudice and Zombies!

Since Jane Austen's works are all in the public domain, we could easily rewrite them to include robots....

On the other hand: there are a great number of Sci-Fi movies (classics even) that are nowhere near the Sci-Fi channel.

Amen brother. When I had cable, I watched the Science Channel far more than Sy-Fy, because the Science Channel tended to play far more Science-Fiction movies and made-for-TV versions of Science Fiction books, complete with discussions from Scientists on the movie (ala History Channel's Real-to-Reel.) Science Channel even played classics like Firefly, which Sy-Fy never played. Only thing I was happy about Sy-Fy for was the first six years of Stargate SG-1, but really, Showtime had more to do with that then Sy-Fy.

Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers

Re:

exactly this, sports, as you say...
i have been a medium sports fan over the years, but i'm willing to give most of it up JUST because i am so pissed at Big Media...
however, SWMBO is probably even more of a sports fan than i, and don't think she is willing to go cold turkey off the glass teat...
IF i had a ways of getting those sports online to her satisfaction, the cord would not only be cut, but un-earthed, coiled up, and thrown back in the face of Big Media...
fuckers
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Re: Re: Re: Criminals

I don't have satellite, but I know someone who does. I was recently over at this person's house and was looking through the on-screen guide. WTF happened to CNN?! It's not there! Fox News is, but not CNN. Come to think of it, MTV isn't there either (but that's no big loss).

Forget Cord-Cutters: Cable Companies Should Worry About Cord-Nevers

Amended: i forgot to provide an article link. I only have basic cable provide where I live at. Cable companies are missing a great chance to increase viewers if they allowed ppl like me to subscribe with an Internet acct and view online.

Re: Re:

Re: Cord-nevers

I'm in my 40s and I've never had a cord. Nor do I listen to radio. I get most of my music and movies free from the public library, my news from the net, and I invest my entertainment dollars in local theatre, keeping it in my community. This makes my life amazingly free of annoying advertising. I don't know how people can stand it.